Azisa (Pty) Ltd v Azisa Media CC [2002] 2 All SA 488 (C)
58
Capital Estate and others (Pty) Ltd v Holiday Inns Inc and others
1977 (2) SA 916 (A)
61
Caterham Car Sales and Coachworks Ltd v Birkin Cars (Pty) Ltd and
another [1998] 3 All SA 175 (1998 (3) SA 938) (SCA)
61
Cowbell AG v ICS Holdings Ltd 2001 (3) SA 941 (SCA)
61
Deutsche Babcock SA (Pty) Ltd v Babcock Africa (Pty) Ltd and another
1995 (4) SA 1016 (T)
58
PlasconEvans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623
(A)
59
Policansky Bros Ltd v L&H Policansky 1935 AD 89
61
Premier Trading Co (Pty) Ltd and another v Sporttopia (Pty) Ltd [1999] JOL
4947 (2000 (3) SA 259) (SCA)
61
Ramsay, Son & Parker (Pty) Ltd v Media 24 Ltd and another case no
4656/04
60
Rovex Ltd and another v Prima Toys (Pty) Ltd 1982 (2) SA 403 (C)
64
Stellenbosch Farmers Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd
1957 (4) SA 234 (C)
63
Value Car Group Ltd and another v Value Car Hire (Pty) Ltd and others
[2005] 4 All SA 474 (C)
61
Cadbury Schweppes v Pub Squash Co [1981] RPC 429
65
Hornsby Building Information Centre (Pty) Ltd v Sydney Building
Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216
65
Viacom New Zealand Ltd v Viacom Systems Limited (1987) 2 FNZLR 600
58
Australia
New Zealand
Page 36 of [2008] 2 All SA 34 (C)
Other
Morning Star v Express Newspapers [1979] FSR 113
63
Judgment
NTSEBEZA AJ:
Introduction
[1] I need to apologise from the outset that this judgment has taken such a long time to come out. I could come
up with a whole host of reasons why it has been so. I choose not to do so. I am a believer in the adage,
"justice delayed is justice denied", because it is very true, hence this apology, unreservedly, rather than give
all manner of excuses, good or bad. Reasons should never subtract anything from the potential prejudice any
litigant party suffers when the outcome of its litigation is delayed.
[2] On 17 November 2005, I reserved judgment for consideration of very excellent arguments put before me by
very able counsel, to both of whom I am hugely in debt, with the support of their attorneys, for the bundles of
authorities they provided me with, but more importantly, for the very compelling arguments each counsel
presented that, to me, demonstrated the professionalism with which counsel approached what is indeed a
fascinating subject, one that is increasingly dominating our intellectual property jurisprudence, even more
since the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 ("the Act").
[3] In this case, what started off as an application to this Court for an order to set aside a decision of the
Registrar of Close Corporations, who had upheld an objection to the Cape Town Lodge CC's name, had since
taken many directions. When the matter was argued before me, I had to consider essentially two issues.
[4] The first issue, in the main application, is whether or not the registered name of the Cape Town Lodge CC
(the applicant in the main application, hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") is undesirable. This was the
finding of the Registrar of Corporations. That decision had been prompted by an objection to the applicant's
registered name, emanating from City Lodge Holdings (Share Block), (Pty) Ltd (the second respondent). The
Registrar's decision that the applicant's name was undesirable was communicated to it in a letter dated 29
August 2004. It is that decision of the Registrar that I was asked, in the main application, to set aside. In
doing so, so I was asked, I should simultaneously dismiss the objection to the applicant's registered name
that had been raised by the second respondent, on 8 July 2002.